Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] selftests/mm: fix "warning: expression which evaluates to zero..." in mlock2-tests.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/5/23 08:43, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 07:15:50PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
The stop variable is a char*, and the code was assigning a char value to
it. This was generating a warning when compiling with clang.

However, as both David and Peter pointed out, stop is not even used
after the problematic assignment to a char type. So just delete that
line entirely.

Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c | 1 -
  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
index 11b2301f3aa3..80cddc0de206 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
@@ -50,7 +50,6 @@ static int get_vm_area(unsigned long addr, struct vm_boundaries *area)
  			printf("cannot parse /proc/self/maps\n");
  			goto out;
  		}
-		stop = '\0';
sscanf(line, "%lx", &start);
  		sscanf(end_addr, "%lx", &end);

I'd rather simply make it "*stop = '\0'", or as David suggested dropping
stop completely when we're it (assumes that scanf() will always work with
number ending with space ' ').

Actually it does not assume that. Rather, it follows the documented behavior
of strchr(3), which is:

    The strchr() and strrchr() functions return a pointer to the matched
    character or NULL if the character is not found. The terminating
    null byte is considered part of the string, so that if c is
    specified as '\0', these functions return a pointer to the
    terminator.

And we have this code now:

	stop = strchr(end_addr, ' ');
	if (!stop) {
		printf("cannot parse /proc/self/maps\n");
		goto out;
	}

So, either stop has a valid char* in it, or we goto out. There are no
fragile assumptions in there, as far as I can see anyway.


No strong opinion here, though.


OK, I think it's kind of a flip of the coin whether to write this:

	stop = strchr(end_addr, ' ');
	if (!stop) {

or this:

	if (!strchr(end_addr, ' ')) {

So I'll just leave it as the first one, which (depending on the
day of the week) might read slightly clearer. :)


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux